...Continued

<<So we concentrate on the observable facts before us, and allow for all possibilities. And if the evidence points to a young earth or and old earth, then so be it. This is where a debate could begin. >>

Only there is no point in debating something that has already been settled - completely, conclusively and unequivocally. It gives the impression that the topic hasn’t yet been settled. It doesn't matter if the Creation "scientist" loses the debate, if the debate alone has helped create the sense that there still is a debate, then that's good enough for the Creation "scientist".

Creation "scientists" are so up against it evidence-wise, they've given up on winning the debate with evidence, they're now content to simply create a sense of confusion and doubt amongst the general public.

CJ Morgan’s Mark Twain quote was also spot-on if you’re looking for a reason as to why Creation “scientists” are hard-pressed finding a debating partner:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Anyway, could you please point to some evidence that the Earth and universe are less than 10,000 years old?

I would appreciate this, especially since you failed to address my point in an earlier thread about how we observe either an ancient Earth, or a deceitful Young Earth Creationist’s God in the contrast between the Rocky Mountains’ static height and deterioration, and the continual rising of the Himalayas.

Thank you.

Arguments about a "young Earth" can effectively comprise a moot point - as there are so many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists etc - who reject literalism. To put up the example of belief in a 'young Earth' - is to a degree 'setting up a straw man'. And as I argued earlier - in the past we were unaware of different spectrums of light, soundwaves etc... By the same token - it stands to reason that there may be aspects of existence that most of us are unaware of.

And if there is a mystery to be understood behind creation stories - stories which are not meant to be taken literally - then what good to reject these out of hand just because we do not understand for now?

And yes: many of you would say - "Why should I believe in something I do not understand and cannot perceive?" But past experience in human history ought demonstrate that even if we do not understand - that is not a rationale for rejecting ideas out of hand. When the Greeks came up with the idea of atoms in ancient times they could not prove this hypothesis. But 20th Century science vindicated the position.

I am always bemused by fundamentalists (but never amused - too scary) who reject the science which explains evolution. Yet these same people hold no reservations against using the products that scientific thought, research and testing created. They have never shunned the science-given technology which enables them to proselytise.

There is nothing wrong with questioning scientific theory - that is what science does. However, slapping 'supernatural putty' into the areas science has yet to understand only builds a wall of ignorance.

Does Carl Weiland refrain from using computers, telephones, cars, airplanes, trains, microwave ovens? Does he eschew medicine, surgery or nursing aid when unwell? Much of modern medicine would not be as effective without an understanding of evolution which lead to gene technology. The next time he bites into an apple will he think of the agriculture behind that juicy, crunchy bite? The observable evolution that is farming?

To be sure, Dawkins is wise by rejecting arguing with a fool.

Severin,
From what I’ve heard, Carl Wieland’s formal qualifications are in medicine and surgery.

I’d like to know what your scientific qualifications are, sufficient to give you the right to speak so disparagingly about this person.

Do you claim to understand gene technology better than him?

I call it as I see it, Mr Viljoen.

>>Dealing with specifics is fine, but I’m getting a bit bored with the colourful adjectives (sly, sleight of hand, etc.) that seem intent on denigration rather than constructive comment<<

In this context they are themselves constructive comment.

You argue with insinuation, rather than fact. By refraining from being specific, you avoid the direct response "that's nonsense". Instead you rely on the reader to draw the inferences themselves, and who in doing so, take a level of responsibility for the statement.

By saying, as you did,...

“For scientific pioneers such as Isaac Newton, it was integrated into their thinking. 'The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.'”

...you are able to dodge any charge of allocating religious roots to Newton's work, even though that is clearly your intended implication.

An honest approach would be to state "Christianity informed Newton's discoveries", which can easily be rebutted. Your method is devious, and well deserves the description "tricky".

Which is the same manner in which you approach the atheism vs. creationist debate. Your insinuation that atheism must have something to hide...

"Wieland requests a public debate on the topic of which viewpoint, creation or evolution, is best represented by the empirical evidence. Nicholls is quick to dismiss the request"

...stops short of a direct accusation, since that is easily rejected. This is at the heart of my accusation that you are indulging in sophistry, under cover of some superficially plausible lead-in observations on "truth being the first casualty of war"

Which truth is that, Mr Viljoen?

You intention is to conflate geology with religious beliefs, in an attempt to place the two on an equal "scientific" footing.

" the two positions, being philosophically poles apart, will also remain rooms apart during Melbourne’s leafy autumn. Why must this be?"

Not merely "philosophically" poles apart. They are completely separate lines of reasoning.

As you well know. So I might add specious to the list, just to round it out nicely.

Dan S. M.

You do understand what a rhetorical question is don't you?

Of course Wieland does not eschew the fruits of science, anymore than your good self, as you are here, writing on this blog.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Wieland applies deliberate ignorance to support his fundamental religious beliefs. Many Christians, with the exclusion of your good self and Wieland can accept the best of what their religion has to offer without remaining mired in a literal interpretation of the bible.

My background, BTW, is in Environmental Science and given Wieland's predilection to wilfully ignore the massive body of evidence of evolution produced in the past and to date, I posit that I do understand gene technology better than he.